Zoning and Planning Board denies driveway setback variance for 232 North Locust Street

The Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals voted against a variance request for 232 North Locust Street, denying property owner Larry Hamill’s bid to reduce the required side-yard setback for a driveway parking stall. City planner John (city staff) told the board the applicant sought relief from section 44-1747 (sub 3 sub c.1) to allow an uncovered parking space alongside a garage where the code requires an 8-foot stall plus a 2.5-foot side-yard buffer. John said the applicant’s poured concrete places the driveway approximately 10 inches from the property line in parts — about 1 foot 7 inches closer than the 2.5-foot buffer required to yield an 8-foot legal parking stall. The board was split 2–2 on a motion to approve the variance, so the motion failed. The board chair said inspection staff will follow up and the inspection department will require removal or alteration of the poured concrete to bring the property into compliance; specifically, staff said the driveway will need to be aligned to meet the required setback measured 2.5 feet from the side and rear lot lines. Hamill told the board he had relied on three contractors’ advice and believed he was replacing an existing driveway legally. “I’ve never dealt with a permit,” Hamill said, describing confusion over the process and the cost and stress of the enforcement action. After the vote he told the board, “So you just cost me $20,000 in concrete,” and expressed frustration that he had poured the concrete while expecting a fast permit turnaround. Staff said the poured work was inspected after construction began and a conditional notice was issued; the inspector documented that work occurred without the proper permit and that portions of the poured surface would need to be removed or modified. The board’s deliberations focused on whether the lot showed the “exceptional circumstances” required by variance standards — some members noted the house’s skewed orientation relative to the lot made portions of the driveway legal at the rear but noncompliant at the front; others said the lot itself was not exceptional compared with nearby parcels. Because the motion to approve failed, the board did not adopt any variance; the inspection department will enforce the code and follow up on the ordered removal or reconstruction. The petitioner was reminded that building permits and, where applicable, permits to work in the right-of-way must be obtained before construction.